Chairmans reply to Consortium
Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 9:31 am
John,
To answer your email in the order that you have written,
My letter to members was sent out in good faith, I have been criticised for not keeping members informed, so I guess I can not win. The letter clearly says that we are waiting a response from you. I realised that the supporters also want to know what’s going on, and I presumed that someone would post a copy on the forum, which they promptly did.
On to the meeting, Friday 2nd September 4pm at the office of Glenn Tamplin.
You arrived at 4.30pm, a good start.
You handed out a sheet of paper headed “Subscription Table” which was a proposal of investment being suggested by you,
What is omitted from this table is your proposed vote schedule, as you read them out, I wrote them in on my copy, next to the % holding figure.
Your table shows John and Lee Goodwin listed together as the Goodwin’s,
You proposed that Glenn had 4 votes, then you, me, Chris, Dave Ward, G. Bramley, The Goodwin’s (together), Brian, and the members, 1 vote each.
At no time did you propose that the Goodwin’s would have a vote each, and it certainly would not make sense. You argued that if Chris and I backed Glenn we would have 6 votes together, the remaining share holders, including the members, also would have 6 votes, Glenn asked for 6 votes for himself, then 5, you would not agree, he asked for the casting vote, once again you would not agree. So unless you are saying that this did not happen, there is no room in the math to include an extra vote for Lee. So I really don’t know why you have raised that point, when it simply was not mentioned.
There was plenty of further discussion on this, i.e. Glenn putting in 12.5 times the amount of money as you but only having 4 votes, Chris and I being asked to put in more than other 1 vote holders, etc etc.
Moving onto security, guarantees etc
I thought, and I believe Chris did too, that you were being highly unreasonable, bearing in mind that by the time we would have got to this stage Glenn would have paid at least 312,500.00 already, surely if you are prepared to join in a consortium with someone, you should trust them. Clearly it’s not the case that Glenn can not guarantee payments, it’s his reluctance to be bullied into it.
We had already agreed that shares would be forfeited back to the members if payments were not made. I was quite comfortable with the matter.
Concerning the paragraph where you refer to an email sent by Glenn on Monday re his proposal. You seem to have overlooked the fact, that at that point, we had not had a reply from you, once again, quite clear in my letter.
Since I sent out my letter we have now received your reply declining Glenn’s offer, citing lack of funds on your part.
Regarding your request for clarification of Glenn’s latest offer, this is based very much on what was being offered at the last informal members meeting,
This will all be set out with the offer when it is sent out to the members to consider.
As you have since acknowledged, I have agreed to wait a while to receive your revised offer.
John, throughout your letter you refer to your consideration of the members and supporters, I can not help but think to myself how shallow this sounds, I and other board members present remember very well your reply to me at a very early stage of discussions. To remind you, you had suggested 5 or 6 people investing 40 or 50,000 pounds a year for 5 years. This whittled away to just 4 people investing 40,000 for one year, my response was that I would not want to recommend that to the members, 160,000 total was not enough money; I believe I actually said that I felt it was insulting the members. Your reply was words to the effect “If it’s the only offer, they will have no choice but accept”
I think this answers all the points that you have raised.
However I will add one last point to my response, to record that I declared myself personally OUT of negotiations with you when you began your “Thompson Out” routine!
I also reserve the right to publish this letter / email etc.
Hopefully someone will post it as quickly as your reply to me.
Regards
David
To answer your email in the order that you have written,
My letter to members was sent out in good faith, I have been criticised for not keeping members informed, so I guess I can not win. The letter clearly says that we are waiting a response from you. I realised that the supporters also want to know what’s going on, and I presumed that someone would post a copy on the forum, which they promptly did.
On to the meeting, Friday 2nd September 4pm at the office of Glenn Tamplin.
You arrived at 4.30pm, a good start.
You handed out a sheet of paper headed “Subscription Table” which was a proposal of investment being suggested by you,
What is omitted from this table is your proposed vote schedule, as you read them out, I wrote them in on my copy, next to the % holding figure.
Your table shows John and Lee Goodwin listed together as the Goodwin’s,
You proposed that Glenn had 4 votes, then you, me, Chris, Dave Ward, G. Bramley, The Goodwin’s (together), Brian, and the members, 1 vote each.
At no time did you propose that the Goodwin’s would have a vote each, and it certainly would not make sense. You argued that if Chris and I backed Glenn we would have 6 votes together, the remaining share holders, including the members, also would have 6 votes, Glenn asked for 6 votes for himself, then 5, you would not agree, he asked for the casting vote, once again you would not agree. So unless you are saying that this did not happen, there is no room in the math to include an extra vote for Lee. So I really don’t know why you have raised that point, when it simply was not mentioned.
There was plenty of further discussion on this, i.e. Glenn putting in 12.5 times the amount of money as you but only having 4 votes, Chris and I being asked to put in more than other 1 vote holders, etc etc.
Moving onto security, guarantees etc
I thought, and I believe Chris did too, that you were being highly unreasonable, bearing in mind that by the time we would have got to this stage Glenn would have paid at least 312,500.00 already, surely if you are prepared to join in a consortium with someone, you should trust them. Clearly it’s not the case that Glenn can not guarantee payments, it’s his reluctance to be bullied into it.
We had already agreed that shares would be forfeited back to the members if payments were not made. I was quite comfortable with the matter.
Concerning the paragraph where you refer to an email sent by Glenn on Monday re his proposal. You seem to have overlooked the fact, that at that point, we had not had a reply from you, once again, quite clear in my letter.
Since I sent out my letter we have now received your reply declining Glenn’s offer, citing lack of funds on your part.
Regarding your request for clarification of Glenn’s latest offer, this is based very much on what was being offered at the last informal members meeting,
This will all be set out with the offer when it is sent out to the members to consider.
As you have since acknowledged, I have agreed to wait a while to receive your revised offer.
John, throughout your letter you refer to your consideration of the members and supporters, I can not help but think to myself how shallow this sounds, I and other board members present remember very well your reply to me at a very early stage of discussions. To remind you, you had suggested 5 or 6 people investing 40 or 50,000 pounds a year for 5 years. This whittled away to just 4 people investing 40,000 for one year, my response was that I would not want to recommend that to the members, 160,000 total was not enough money; I believe I actually said that I felt it was insulting the members. Your reply was words to the effect “If it’s the only offer, they will have no choice but accept”
I think this answers all the points that you have raised.
However I will add one last point to my response, to record that I declared myself personally OUT of negotiations with you when you began your “Thompson Out” routine!
I also reserve the right to publish this letter / email etc.
Hopefully someone will post it as quickly as your reply to me.
Regards
David